Halo 4 devs speak out against sexism

 @l777l  @LinkLuigi  @themedianerd except that in the ToU it specifically says not to harass other players and all that other stuff. negotiating change is fine, but you are not entitled to it, as so many posters here seem to believe they are. they are only entitled by the legal meaning of free speech within the realm of the first amendment.

do they have the right to complain? sure. but saying that xbox CAN'T enforce their own rules (which, by the way, appear to have been the same since 2010, so yeah these two women likely didn't create them) because these commenters have "freedom of speech" is just plain wrong.

 @l777l  @themedianerd And the weirdest this about this is I actually took the time to argue your morals with you, since you wanted to argue morals separate from law. Seems that since it does not immediately agree with you, it must be glossed over, huh?

 @l777l  @themedianerd That's what I figured. The only one here rambling is you. And after I went out of my way to give you a dignified response to your drivel. Please, don't respond, because you really don't have much of a leg to stand on.Good bit of hypocrisy, however, and "rambling" with rambling.

That said, I go by legal description, which was the point of my "ramblings". I understood fully in what you have meant. That is ONLY your opinion. That is what free speech means to you. You are the only one here who seems to have a confused attachment to morality and law, it does not mean what you assume it to mean. I have understood fully what you have meant, and have argued that it is meaningless; nobody cares what your morals are. I have stated that multiple times.

It is because your definition of free speech is so loose, is the reason why it has no value. Should they be forced to carry out your "free and unrestricted" speech?

And this is why it is you that is rambling here. You seem to want to have your morals heard. I'm glad you have an understand the difference between a legal and moral agreement. Understand that only one is of actual value. Whether the law was created in regards to morality is irrelevant in its entirety.

And as for "acceptance". As I as stated, only one form of acceptance is...acceptable, and that is in legal terms. You seem to understand this, yet argue moral disagreement as if it meant anything. Ironically, in terms of the law, if you agree to one, you agree to another. This is an optional contract. You can feel free to accept, or you may not, if your moral objection is that strong. However, the fact that you do accept means that whatever moral disagreement you might have felt must not have been important enough to you.

So yes, it seems you haven't a clue on morality and law. That you decided to insult proves that you are nothing more than an over emotional guy, upset that the world does not work the way you want. I didn't want to insult, but hey, you opened that door. It'll be great to actually read what the person has wrote, rather than whine that they are "rambling". Seems your just mad that somebody responded intelligently to your post, rather than rave at you like you were expecting.

 @LinkLuigi  @themedianerd Well, apparently it is. You are mistaken. I stated that there may be no legal obligation. Free speech is a concept that still exist. It means what it says when it says "free", it means unrestricted speech. As such it is a neutral description. People will discover moral relevance worth or "unworth" in it.

I don't know where you found it necessary to attach your confused considerations of morality and your lectures as to law (I made a distinction between law - formal legal obligation - and ethics - moral obligations. Somehow you found it necessary to add your ramblings).

I refer back to what I said. Just a few more things: Law acts in reaction to feelings. Many things we codify are influenced by considerations and feelings or morality. Law is codified morality. Here it is democratically codified morality. (I consider stare decisis/precedent as a form of codification.)

As for the quotation marks around "accept". They signify that acceptance happens in purely legal terms. The extent of moral agreement is not necessarily identical. It means to accept in terms of law, not to accept in terms of morality.

And terms are generally negotiable. They are in democratic processes (influencing legislation) and they are in contractual relationships; the other part merely has to be convinced, which occasionally can not be done but is not out of the question here.

All this because you are confused about law and morality. It'd help if you actually payed attention and thought instead of rambling. I don't have more time to waste on you, unless you bring up something surprising, relevant, and of quality.      

 @LinkLuigi  @themedianerd LL, Is this supposed to be a reply to what I've written?

 @l777l  @themedianerd To be blunt, and forgive me for my insulting tone, for an insult is not what I mean to purvey , but nobody cares about your "moral" concepts, simply because everyone's sense of morals are different. This is why the laws do not act upon what we, as the individual, deem "fair".

You can argue what YOU feel "free speech" means, but that means diddly squat, as they do not have to uphold how you feel it should be.

"So even when private businesses are not directly and legally bound by it, it still can make sense to appreciate and ask for free speech. It appears this is what is the case here."

I must quote this sentence in particular. What is your definition of "free speech", and why should they bend to your demands on what they are? Schools don't allow you those demands. Stores don't. You are even at the mercy of residential areas; if my cousin was a Packers fan (thank God she's not), she has full reign to kick me out of her house for saying that the Packers rightfully sucks. It would be absolutely wrong of me to demand that I get more rights in her house than she does, at last in these manners.

The same goes here. These are privately owned developers. Your taxes do not pay their salaries the way they pay firemen; they do not have to serve you. You agreed to that contract, you agree to their terms, and it was your right as an American citizen to disagree and not use their service.

As to your second paragraph, that is exactly why the law does not work on feelings. As stated, and I apologize for my rudeness, but nobody cares how you feel about your moral beliefs. If that is how you felt, then you should negotiate the terms of that agreement before signing. If those terms were non-negotiable (and they weren't), then you don't sign.

In legal terms, and this is coming from a guy who only studied law in high school a few years back, not one who has taken law as their major, there is no quotation marks in "accept" (not counting grammatical accuracy, of course). Either you accept it or you don't.

And it seems that, as stated, their terms are non negotiable. These were ALWAYS the rules. I put always in ALLCAPS for themedianerd's sake. In Xbox Live, those were always the rules - they were never enforced properly. In those terms, they also state that they have every right to change the rules out of the blue, without warning, whenever they see fit. As much as that scares me, I agreed to it, and this is one of those changes.

 @l777l    You make a good point that accepting an agreement doesn't mean you should disavow your beliefs I agree with that, but the developers are only asking you to behave properly within the boundaries of their service they're not asking you to hunt for slaves or torture someone. In fact what they're trying to do is the opposite of morally problematic, the people that have their morals twisted are the ones who need to insult and slander other people.

I'm against violence of any sort be it verbal or physical.

 @nagarond  @Jestersmiles  @Khasym  @l777l yeah.... i really wouldn't want my address posted. i don't even put it on my business cards (had a few creepy males i had to visit, told my boss never to send another female there and am thankful my address isn't on my cards). i get the original point, though, it's just a scary thought because of these people who say such idiotic, vulgar and sexist things online, some of them ARE unstable and might drop by to say it to my face....

 @Jestersmiles  @Khasym  @l777l But I do agree that telling people they are babies and whiners isn't really an argument and if you try to make your point with those kinds of comments you started your argument with the left foot.

I understand Jester's point with the mute button and it's a partial solution but I find that particular part of his comments positive. We can get along, we just have to get the points across without any needless hostility, same with XBL.

 @Jestersmiles  @Khasym  @l777l I don't think that posting the address and real names is a real solution to the problem, that would bring about even worse behavior and a more physical sort of violence, sorry Khasym but to that I say no thanks.

@Jestersmiles@l777l

I'll end it on this Jester:

You came into this conversation, insulting people, and telling them what THEY should do about this problem. It's not their problem, it's not my problem, it's not your problem. It is THIS problem. Some of your more outspoken suggestions were "Stop whining," "just mute everyone," and "quit being so childish"

I came into this conversation, approving the decision set forth by others, and speaking on my experienes with this problem. WE got into conflict, because you kept trying to tell me what I SHOULD do, and I told you what I WILL do.

 @Khasym  @l777l 

and my point is it should really not matter that much. 

Look let just agree to disagree?

but don't get me wrong I know people can get annoying , I guess we have different ways of dealing with it. 

 @LinkLuigi  @Khasym  @l777l 

if whining equal sating facts sure what the hell I am whining.

 @Jestersmiles  @l777l Amazing, I keep saying this and it doesn't sink in. I have no way of knowing who you are, or where you are from. I have no way of knowing what your prowess is in manipulating Xbox live code. So again, why should I believe anything you "say" you can prove, over a system designed specifically to elude identity?

 @LinkLuigi  @Khasym  @l777l 

I don't even like Halo -_-.

 @Khasym  @l777l 

oh brother so does mean that much to you? easy my tag is the same as my GS name, just with x's as brackets. 

 @Jestersmiles  @Khasym  @l777l No, just smart. You, however, feel free to say what you like on Halo 4, then get banned. Fun for all.

Honestly, you're the one doing the most whining. If you don't like their practice, vote with your wallet, I'm sure they'll feel it.

 @Jestersmiles  @l777l But I'm not the one saying "Go and prove it." And a picture of your gamertag, proves less than nothing. How do I know you're even on your own XBL account? How do I know you haven't manipulated the picture?

 @Khasym  @l777l 

everything you said to me applies to you. That was easy.

 @Khasym  @l777l 

I can take a picture of my rating if it would please you so much?

 @Khasym  @l777l 

again there are ways to prevent hearing hate speeches that my whole point.  You just even more done for w/e reason.

 @Jestersmiles  @l777l And as I said sir, you hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. You can say "care to prove it," because you know I can't. That tracking down your Gamertag, persuading Microsoft to release all your text messages, and any voice chat logs they MAY have, is a violation of your privacy. So, you can say whatever you want, and never fear being brought to task over it.

Me? I'd say the same things I've said here, to your face. And I wouldn't think twice about it.

 @Khasym  @l777l 

me spew vile speeches over the internet? oh really care to prove that? oh you cant assuming again are we?

any way by wanting to "back up" what you say you are just lowering yourself to their level.

So much for taking the high road huh?

 @Jestersmiles  @l777l I never said I was taking the high road. You did. I don't have some high and mighty agenda for enforcing a contractual obligation. I'm just not afraid to say what I believe. THAT is freedom of speech, not spouting meaningless hate just to get a rise out of someone.

 @LinkLuigi  @Khasym  @l777l 

so he just a poser then? ok

 @Khasym  @Jestersmiles "They already do." Yes. And quite possibly you want them to do that (and to do it in the future, too.) You want it for yourself. You want them to do it for you. That's why you form a contract. Do ut des. 

 @Jestersmiles  @l777l Why not. I'm not afraid to back up what I say. The ones without the heart to back up racist insults, yet spew them all the same, are you and your friends. I can respect someone who is a racist and just admits it. I may not like it, but I can respect them for having a clear view. You on the other hand, want to toss vile speech over the internet, and then claim privacy because you don't want to face the consequences.

 @Jestersmiles  @Khasym  @l777l Cept he most like knows how to not get banned on Halo 4. He can be a rotten apple, just not on that game.

 @Khasym  @l777l 

Because if I find out a person who said that kind of thing lived near me, I'd be more than pleased to just deal with the matter myself.

WOW it seem your the one with problems not the people on the internet. 

LOL so your true colors reviled themselves. 

Your no different from the rotten apples you claim you want to be taken away.

 @Khasym  @l777l 

lol  yeah put people lives at risk just  because they offended you? WOW really? 

So people getting you so mad that you want to put them in harms ways, financially and physically just so you can get you gaming utopia? 

WOW

 @l777l  @Jestersmiles They already do. What they are failing to do, is live up to their code of conduct. But again, my personal solution iss till my favorite. Just have everyone ID'ed by their real names online. Publish their addresses, and let people spew whatever they want. I won't care then. Because if I find out a person who said that kind of thing lived near me, I'd be more than pleased to just deal with the matter myself.

 @Jestersmiles  @Khasym a goal of MS is to create a community and a wider user base so that they make more money. if you must everyone not on your friend list, your community will usually only be tied to people you already know and will not likely grow. it's not in their interest to have that be the main function to deal with harassment, either.

 @Khasym  @nagarond 

When I found out about mute everyone not on your friend list , plus having the party feature, I actually gone back to play COD4 back when that games was relevant.

the party feature plus the mute any one not on your friend list actually made go back to games I did not want to deal with 12 year olds.

See it works, just do it. -_-

 @Jestersmiles  @nagarond Why is it meaningless? Show me anything that changed for the better, because no one suggested change should happen.

 @nagarond  @Khasym that my point , there are more than enough ways to make your online experiences less annoying , crying for more is meaninglessness , just sounds like you want to change human nature at this point.

Really relax more than enough was to deal with the rotten core.

 @Jestersmiles  @Khasym It's a discussion board, meant for, you know, discussing topics. It also happens to be hosted by a videogame editorial network so if you have more meaningful things to do then by all means go and  make the world a better place Jester.

 @Khasym w/e your naivete is hilarious have fun pursuing your rights over something so meaninglessness 

 @Jestersmiles And you're whining over a right you don't realize you don't have. I know my rights, and the recourses I have to pursue them if I choose. You're the one telling people to just shut up and deal with it.